Mark Miller wrote:
[...]
>>So, it's all about supporting everyone in their learning
>>process. Not by providing the actual training, but by providing
>>and promoting the path.
>>> I still disagree. The only "path" is our objectives. We give no
> guidance beyond that to the creation of any training materials
> or programs. In fact I nearly posted about this exact thing
> this weekend. So much of what is out there is wrong,
> incomplete, out of date, or goes off on tangents unrelated to
> LPI objectives (minicom? I haven't used that since I was trying
> to figure out my ppp scripts for my 28.8k modem!).
All I talk about is LPI's exam objectives being the path for Linux
education and promoting this path. Where do you disagree?
Anselm Lingnau wrote:
> Torsten Scheck wrote:
>>>Let's convince the Linux-related industry, that LPI's exam objectives
>>define exactly the knowledge and skills, which are needed to get the
>>leading in-house Linux compentency.
>> If you (or anybody) can arrange this, please apply immediately for a
> job with the United Nations -- you should find it positively easy and
> straightforward to negotiate lasting peace for the Middle East.
:-)
It seems, my comment sounds naive. But sometimes you need a simple plan
to achieve a goal.
I just presented three simple steps regarding our exam objectives:
* define clear principles for exam objectives
* review exam objectives according to those principles
* promote exam objectives
Is this so controversial?
As a reminder: I joined this thread, when people were arguing about the
current objectives review and the default MTA application, and I wanted
to help with some thoughts on the bigger picture.
Torsten
--
Torsten Scheck <torsten.scheck at gmx.de> Jabber:torsten at i0i0.de
GnuPG 1024D/728E 6696 F43D D622 78F1 F481 45C0 2147 69AB DD54
software engineer:open standards/access/knowledge:enthgnusiast